Testing Of Nuclear Weapons example essay topic

In their effort to create a bomb that would assure destruction of enemies, the world super powers of this century have created a legacy that could presumably destroy the entire world as we know it (Schull 6). During the course of the last fifty years, nuclear weapons have continually become an increasingly detrimental threat to our own health and environment. Consequently, laws have been proposed and bills have been signed to end this senseless build-up of arsenal and testing of havoc-causing atomic was instruments. Unfortunately, enforcing such rules worldwide has proven itself to be remarkably difficult and world allies have had to use extreme caution when dealing with any and all emerging threats. In the early days of nuclear weapons production, of course, not all safety hazards were fully appreciated, and possible threats to the environment went completely unrecognized. For this reason, we continued to tryout these deadly war tools without any major concern for our future.

To be sure, it is understandable that in the race to produce the atomic bomb before Hitler, such considerations would come second. What is surprising is that this negligence should persist for 50 years thereafter, in spite of the growing awareness of the threats that technology and nuclear weapons production can pose. Even the challenge of cleaning up the results of four decades of nuclear weapons production from testing should be vast enough to tell us that testing must absolutely come to a complete stop around the world. Incredible resources will be needed to dispose of 2,700 tons of spent fuel, 10,500 hazardous substances, and 100 million gallons of high-level waste; to clean up 2.3 million acres of land; and to re mediate 120 million square feet of buildings on 120 sites (Day 40-41).

Four major tasks can be identified: to stabilize and maintain a large number of nuclear materials and facilities; to design, build, and operate a variety of treatment facilities to prepare waste for disposal and provide safe interim storage; to manage large amounts and varieties of wastes; and to work towards environmental restoration (Mosman 13). But nuclear weapons testing has had different effects all over the world. And the 'not-in-my-backyard syndrome' has come to voice opinions everywhere. -- Nobody is willing to accept waste and storage facilities anywhere near their town.

In the United States, Nevada has long been the 'center' of weapons testing and inherently a case-in-point that the cessation of testing may prove to be as difficult as the testing itself. The prime location of nuclear weapons testing for over thirty years, one Nevada facility has within its boundaries an extremely high concentration of radioactive substances from atmospheric and underground testing. Although most atmospheric nuclear weapons testing ended in 1964 with the Limited Test Ban Treaty, the radioactive fallout in regions such as this one will still be around for centuries to come. According to one of my sources, 430,000 people will die from cancer induced by the fallout in this century. Moreover, 2.4 million people in all will suffer the same fate well into the next millennium (Schull 14).

Even as the radioactive risk from the air declines in the far future, another radioactive hazard may replace it from the ground. It is ironically disturbing that we have taken so long to wholeheartedly even acknowledge of attempt to do something about these concerns. As long ago as 1961, the United Nations General Assembly, resolution 1653 (XVI) was adopted. The resolution states that: The use of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons would exceed even the scope of war and cause indiscriminate suffering and destruction to mankind and civilization and, as such, is contrary to the rules of international law and to the laws of humanity. It is clear that the use of nuclear weapons, which cause indiscriminate mass murder and leave survivors to suffer for decades, is a violation of international law. In addition, the development, possession and testing of nuclear weapons is a violation of international law.

As long as nuclear weapons exist, the human race faces a real and present danger of self-extermination (Yamazaki preface). In 1992, Congress, in a piece of legislative maneuvering, attempted to end nuclear testing once and for all by incorporating a comprehensive test ban (CTB) amendment into the FY 1993 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. Although President Bush opposed the ban, he signed the bill on October 2, 1992. The test-ban amendment did not simply declare a moratorium on testing until a CTB could be negotiated. Rather, it established a three-step approach.

The legislation instituted a nine-month moratorium on all U.S. nuclear testing, beginning at the time the bill was signed. After the end of the moratorium, up to 15 tests could be conducted for limited purposes, principally to enhance stockpile safety. All testing would cease by September 30, 1996, as the United States led the way to a multilateral CTB (Johnson 8; Sternberg F/01). When the U.N. General Assembly unanimously called for 'the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons' in 1946, there was only one nuclear power and the number of atomic weapons could be counted on the fingers of one hand (Ruben 8). Today there are eight nuclear powers and the world arsenal numbers at least 40,000 weapons.

In the United Nations and in the context of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the five 'declared' nuclear states have successfully resisted efforts to subject their monopoly to international control, conceding only an NPT obligation -- with no deadline -- to reduce nuclear arsenals with the 'ultimate' goal of their elimination. Frustrated in those arenas, non-nuclear countries mounted a challenge to nuclear weapons in the judicial branch of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, popularly known as the World Court. From what I could infer in my readings, the court is expected to respond soon to requests for a non-binding advisory opinion on whether the threat of use of the actual use of nuclear weapons is prohibited under international law. The World Court initiative is an attempt by non-nuclear states to bring another international institution into play (Johnson 8; Mollison A/08). In November 1995, two weeks of hearings were held before the court in The Hague, Netherlands.

The significance of the case was reflected in intense arguments on both sides and the unprecedented participation of 45 states (Johnson 8). According to what I read, twenty-two made oral presentations at the hearings, and another 23 submitted written statements. More than two-thirds of the presentations contended that nuclear weapons are instruments of mass destruction whose effects are inherently indiscriminate and uncontrollable, and therefore illegal. The nuclear states countered that there is no treaty explicitly banning use of nuclear weapons comparable to conventions on chemical and biological weapons. Whether nuclear use is legal, they said, depends on the circumstances of each case and cannot be prejudged (Johnson 8). One of the questions before the court is whether the use of nuclear weapons violates international law in view of its health and environmental consequences.

In 1993, despite determined opposition by the' nuclear states, non-nuclear countries collected a majority in the World Health Organization (WHO) in support of a request for an advisory opinion on that question. In 1994, the General Assembly followed suit, posing the broader question of whether it is permissible to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance. The General Assembly request was intended in part to overcome objections to the standing of the WHO in raising a question involving issues of peace and security. Clearly, the decisions of the WHO and the General Assembly to bring these issues before the court reflect the growing influence of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in law-making as it relates to the testing of nuclear weapons. Working with the Non-Aligned Movement, a group of NGOs known as the World Court Project lobbied hard to secure majorities within the WHO and the General Assembly to request advisory opinions.

The NGOs also assisted several non-nuclear states in preparing arguments (Johnson 8-9). Conclusively, it has been more than 35 years since we began to wholeheartedly realize the environmental and health threats imposed by nuclear weapons all over the world. Nevertheless, countries still continue to develop and test weapons that contribute to the life-threatening polluting of our atmosphere while we continue to develop the legal framework that will hopefully create some mutually-agreeable resolution and cessation. However, such has yet to come. The leaders of the world have proven that they were more eager to create the bomb than they are the create a way to completely ban it...

Appendix When nuclear tests were conducted: The United States 1945-1992 Russia 1949-1990 U.K. 1952-1991 France 1960-1991 & 95-China 1964-presentations Who Conducted 2,035 known nuclear tests: The United States 1,030 Russia 715 U.K. 45 France 204 China 41 The Statistics Above are Illustrated in Percentages By the Pie Chart Below: (Source: Mollison A/08)

Bibliography

Day Jr., Samuel. 'The big lie. ,' Vol. 57, Progressive, 1 Jun 1993, pp.
40. Johnson, Douglas. 'Atolls and atom bombs: France's colonial design. ,' Vol. 45, History Today, 1 Dec 1995, pp.
8. Mollison, Andrew. 'Focus on Nuclear Testing. ' The Atlanta Constitution, 16 Aug 1995, pp.
A/08. Mosman, Jan. 'Ban nuclear tests. ,' Vol. 339, Economist, 4 May 1996, pp.
13. Ruben, Barbara, 'How to really bomb a test. ,' Vol. 24, Environmental Action, 1 Jan 1993, pp.
8. Schull, William J. Effects of Atomic Radiation. (New York, NY: Free Press, 1995).
Sternberg, Steve. 'From war's holocaust, new radiation findings,' The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 20 Mar 1993, pp.
F/01. Yamazaki, James N. Children of the Atomic Bomb. (Duke University Press, 1995).